IMO, this would also allow us to close Action-675 "Draft a proposal for
adapting SC for repairing missing relationships to include a proviso for
user being able to turn off repair. " since it is "upon request".
On 4/11/2012 1:30 PM, Jeanne Spellman wrote:
> The grammar is a little awkward. I would propose:
>
> Delete 1.2.1 & 1.2.2
>
> Add:
> 1.2.X Provide Available Information: If missing or empty alternative
> content or associations are recognized, the user agent will notify the
> user and provide a mechanism to relate all available metadata to the
> user upon request. (Level AA)
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Existing:
> 1.2.1 Repair Missing Alternatives:
>
> The user can specify whether or not the user agent should generate and
> render repair text (e.g. file name) when it recognizes that the author
> has not provided alternative content. (Level A) @@ 712
>
> 1.2.2 Repair Empty Alternatives:
>
> The user can specify whether or not the user agent should generate and
> render repair text (e.g. file name) when it recognizes that the author
> has provided empty alternative content. (Level AAA) @@ 712
>
> 1.2.3 Repair Missing Associations:
>
> The user can specify whether or not the user agent should attempt to
> predict associations from author-specified presentation attributes (i.e.
> position and appearance). (Level AAA) ## DONE TPAC
>
> 1.2.4 Broken Alternative Content:
>
> The user can be notified when the user agent cannot render alternative
> content (e.g. when captions are broken). (Level AAA)## DONE 5 April 2012
>
>
>
> On 4/11/2012 10:32 AM, Jim Allan wrote:
>> Jan,
>> I think you've captured it.
>> The level from 1.2.x from Simon's emails is more than AAA. On a basic
>> level (missing alts, mismatched or missing label/id) this is
>> implementable. I am sure there are more complex
>> alternatives/associations with HTML or other technologies. I can live
>> with AA level. I agree that there is little likely hood of anyone
>> complying with 1.2.x at AAA.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Richards, Jan<jrichards@ocadu.ca> wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the list of changes...but what would be most helpful is a
>>> listing of the actual final proposed SCs. My guess from your emails
>>> is that the 4 SCs currently in GL1.2 will be replaced by just these two:
>>>
>>> 1.2.3 Repair Missing Associations: The user can specify whether or
>>> not the user agent should attempt to predict associations from
>>> author-specified presentation attributes (i.e. position and
>>> appearance). (Level AAA) ## DONE TPAC
>>>
>>> 1.2.X HANDLE ???: In situations where missing or empty alternative
>>> content or associations can be identified, and when those elements
>>> achieve focus, the user agent will notify the user, and provide a
>>> mechanism to relate all available metadata to the user, upon their
>>> request. Thereby, enabling the user to take appropriate alternative
>>> action. Level???
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
>>> jrichards@ocadu.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
>>> Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/
>>> Faculty of Design | OCAD University
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Simon Harper [mailto:simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk]
>>>> Sent: April 11, 2012 3:00 AM
>>>> To: Richards, Jan
>>>> Cc: UAWG list
>>>> Subject: Re: Action 712
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>>
>>>> So let me try and simplify:
>>>> 1) I think 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are redundant - no one will implement
>>>> them at AAA,
>>>> and technology isn't really good enough just yet; but we should
>>>> present the
>>>> information we have (the information we would have to present to the
>>>> computational algorithm for it to try and repair) to the user.
>>>> 2) lets remove both 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.
>>>> 3) 1.2.4 seems good but needs extending with the remnants of 1.2.1 and
>>>> 1.2.2 so that it presents the information (the information we would
>>>> have to
>>>> present to the computational algorithm - 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 - for it to
>>>> try and
>>>> repair) too.
>>>> 4) 1.2.3 is aspirational and seems OK - it's not much possible right
>>>> now but
>>>> we've agreed it so it's fine. I think 1.2.3 gets applied first and then
>>>> (1.2.1+.2+.4) my suggestion when 1.2.3 fails.
>>>>
>>>> I'd also say my suggestion could be applied in the case of a missing
>>>> association too - in that we recognize something is missing, the
>>>> user is
>>>> notified, if they ask for it the (form field, say) information is
>>>> provided to
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Does this clarify?
>>>>
>>>> Si.
>>>>
>>>> PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster
>>>> response
>>>> please include the word 'fast' in the subject line.
>>>>
>>>> =======================
>>>> Simon Harper
>>>> http://simon.harper.name/about/card/
>>>>
>>>> University of Manchester (UK)
>>>> Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
>>>> http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/04/12 18:55, Richards, Jan wrote:
>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot going on in your message. Can you please list all of
>>>>> the success
>>>> criteria that would be present in your rewording of Guideline 1.2?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
_______________________________
Jeanne Spellman
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
jeanne@w3.org